Story - News

Southampton Supervisor Reverses Course, Seeks To Throw Out PDD Law Without Replacing It

Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman’s abrupt decision to kill the municipality’s controversial planned development district law—dropping plans to replace it with a revised and updated version, as he previously suggested—is being hailed as a victory by environmentalists, and as a setback by those representing the construction industry.

If things progress as the supervisor plans, the current year-long moratorium on planned development districts, which is special zoning that requires Town Board approval and permits developers to circumvent established zoning in exchange for community benefits, will be extended by three months. That will give board members additional time to erase the legislation that was written into the town code in 1995 and updated dozens of times since then.

Led by Group for the East End President Robert DeLuca and Long Island Pine Barrens Executive Director Richard Amper, local environmentalists have been pushing for the legislation’s repeal since 2015, charging that it mostly benefits would-be developers by allowing them to greatly increase their potential profits in exchange for minimal community benefits—when the system, they’ve argued, should work the other way.

Their push for repeal hit a fever pitch in response to an application filed by Discovery Land Company of Arizona that is seeking a PDD in order to build a 118-unit luxury development featuring an 18-hole golf course on nearly 600 acres in East Quogue, the largest undeveloped tract of land remaining on the South Fork.

“I would say the announcement comes as welcome news … ” Mr. DeLuca said on Tuesday. “This particular tool isn’t doing what we intended it to.”

Mr. DeLuca, who said he has assisted town officials as they’ve attempted to “do surgery” on the law and improve it over the past decade, explained that the original intent of the PDD law—which, he said, has since been lost—is to provide specific benefits to the community that could not be achieved through traditional zoning, such as the construction of a senior center or hospital.

Mr. Amper agreed with that sentiment, adding that the town failed to define what constitutes a community benefit, allowing the developers to control the conversation and, in turn, retain the power.

“PDDs are ‘Let’s make a deal’ zoning,” Mr. Amper said. “They were intended to be used by the government to allow developers to build what the town needed. But it has turned into a tool for developers to build what they want—whether the land is zoned for it or not.”

The supervisor announced his intention to kill the law less than a day after he called for a special meeting on Thursday, June 1, at 1 p.m., at which he intends to ask his fellow Town Board members to extend the current year-long moratorium on PDDs by another three months.

When reached on Friday afternoon, Mr. Schneiderman explained that they need to extend the moratorium that is set to expire on May 31, because otherwise the door would be open for new PDD applications.

He emphasized that the updated plan is to kill the law and not replace it. He noted that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 13, also starting at 1 p.m. at Town Hall, during which he intends to introduce legislation to have the PDD law removed from the books.

“It just can’t be fixed,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “It’s too problematic of a law. It’s not going to be replaced.

“Since the moratorium, no one was able to ask for a PDD, and I want to keep it that way,” he continued. “If the law is passed, no one would be able to ask for one again. The Hills [at Southampton] would be the last PDD to be considered by the town.”

But not everyone is pleased with that decision.

Mitchell Pally, chief executive officer of the Long Island Builders Institute, an Islandia-based organization that represents contractors and developers, said he was disappointed to hear about the pending fate of the PDD law.

“I was involved when the PDD statute was originally enacted by the town,” Mr. Pally said this week. “We believe it’s a very integral part of making sure that a project meets both the economic and environmental needs of the community, as well as provides community benefits … We still are hopeful they keep the PDDs.”

Mr. Pally pointed out that his organization has spoke in support of several PDDs proposed in Southampton Town over the years, including The Hills.

“We think the statute provides more benefits to the town than not having the statute,” he added. “Unfortunately, what happens is that people don’t like decisions proposed by the Town Board, so they attack the legislation … That is clearly what has happened in the town.”

At last Thursday’s work session, Mr. Schneiderman called for a special meeting on June 1 to discuss extending the moratorium on PDDs though, at the time, he did not say the ultimate goal was to kill the law. In his annual “State of the Town” address given in late April, the supervisor stated that town officials intend to repeal and replace the law, suggesting that they have been making headway in completing modifications to the legislation.

At the same work session last week, Mr. Schneiderman stressed that town officials have been working hard on revising the law, stating that they need some additional time to finalize the proposed changes. “I don’t want anyone to think we’ve waited a year and did nothing,” he said at the meeting.

“It’s been exhausting,” added Town Councilman John Bouvier.

If the board agrees to extend it, the moratorium’s expiration date would be pushed back to September 1—though that end date would be moot if the board agrees to eliminate the law, possibly as early as June 13.

Town Planning and Development Administrator Kyle Collins, who sat on the committee charged with reviewing the PDD law, said the biggest issue the public had with the legislation was that it lacked consistency and predictability—both of which, he stressed, are important qualities for all land use decisions.

When reached on Friday afternoon, Town Councilman Stan Glinka said he was surprised to learn that the supervisor wants to eliminate the law. “I was a little shocked … that’s why I’m anxious to have the public hearings and I’m anxious to see what they came up with as a committee.”

When asked if he would support repealing the law, Mr. Glinka said he is reserving his opinion for now. “It’s not a matter of what I think, it’s what everyone else thinks,” he said. “That’s the way I’ve always been. Until we have the hearing, I don’t really know. I know there was some grumblings that were positive and were negative.”

Town Councilwoman Christine Scalera said on Friday that she was unaware of the supervisor’s plans to kill the law, explaining that she did not sit on the committee charged with reviewing the legislation.

“I’m looking forward to them putting forward something,” Ms. Scalera said. “I would have hoped we would have gotten more public hearings prior to this.

“I’m looking forward to the public hearing,” she added. “I’m completely open-mined. If the community doesn’t feel this is something we want, I don’t think we should do it.”

Earlier this year, Mr. Schneiderman said the committee currently reviewing the PDD legislation was leaning toward repealing the current version of the law and replacing it with a new one. In addition to the supervisor, Mr. Bouvier, Mr. Collins, Town Attorney Jim Burke, Assistant Town Attorney Carl Benincasa, and the principal planner for the town’s Department of Land Management, Janice Scherer, also serve on the review panel.

On the one hand, our supervisor and Town Board are poised to eliminate the planned development district legislation due to the fact that it has become grossly distorted over the years and turned into nothing more than a vehicle for overdevelopment and speculation. While on the other hand, these same officials have been deliberating endlessly on whether or not to grant a PDD zone change to a billion-dollar out-of-state development ...morecorporation to build a golf course, with all its negative environmental impacts, over a dedicated Aquifer Protection Area in the Pine Barrens in East Quogue.

Something must be totally scrambled in our Town Hall. If they feel that the PDD legislation needs to be eliminated or drastically changed then how can our Town Board, in good faith, even consider “The Hills at Southampton” PDD application, which is the most impactful and egregious by far of any of these PDDs?

The central point of all PDD zone changes is the strength of the public benefits derived from the project. For example, a school or hospital needs to expand, and the only land available is zoned residential—a PDD would allow them to expand. The public benefit of a better school or hospital is obvious.

However, with The Hills PDD application for the Pine Barrens in East Quogue, there are no public benefits intrinsic to the project. But there are severe long-term environmental and health risks to building a golf course, with all its chemical pollutants, directly over our irreplaceable underground reservoir.

The applicant, Discovery Land Company of Arizona, has seemingly interpreted intrinsic benefits to mean promising oceans of money to various groups and projects in the East Quogue area. This is more in line with purchasing a zone change—which is one of the main reasons why the PDD legislation is on the road to be eliminated.

So here we are. Our supervisor and Town Board are procrastinating and dithering while we are being constantly bombarded by Discovery Land Company’s hired consultants and other paid minions issuing reports and letters to the editor advocating for this potential financial bonanza. Just remember: Consultants and lawyers are like portrait painters. They paint a picture to please their client … the one that pays them.

It is way past time for the supervisor and Town Board to vote and put an end to this PDD application. All it takes is courage.

I've been thinking about why he would do this for the last few hours. I think I've got it: Jay is a very seasoned politician-not a compliment, I assure you. If he shuts down all further PDDs, he can allow "The Hills at Southampton" to pass. "It was already in the pipeline" "It met all criteria"...

I would wager that Jay will vote down the HILLS. He is very smart & he has been on the east end of Long Island for a very long time. He "gets it".

Why would any honest politician or knowledgable person allow more chemicals to be introduced when EVERYONE is talking about cleaning up our waters!

Steve Bellone, Bridget Fleming, Ed Romaine and many other east end public administrators know that if we don't have clean water - we will not have a healthy business environment and a safe ...moreplace for our children to swim, play and grow up.

In this newspaper - on April 27th, 2017 - an article quoted Dr. Christopher Gobler.

"A newly submitted report, researched by one of the East End’s most well-respected water quality experts, challenges the science used and conclusions reached in the draft environmental impact statement filed by the Arizona developer pushing for a zoning change that would permit the construction of a luxury golf resort in East Quogue.In his highly anticipated report filed last month with Southampton ...moreTown, Dr. Chris Gobler, a marine science professor at Stony Brook Southampton, also states that the proposed 118-home, 18-hole private golf course being pursued by Discovery Land Company—dubbed “The Hills at Southampton”—would add more nitrogen to the environment than if the firm was allowed to develop the nearly 600 acres according to its current zoning. The land owned by Discovery Land currently carries 5-acre residential zoning, the most restrictive in the municipality".

The best part of this is that Dr. Gobler is not on anyones payroll - as opposed to most of the other commentators on this subject.

Why would the town allow a developer to add 4,000,000 sq. ft. of turf in the most protected zoning part of the town. I believe that most of the board members will not allow this.

Remember - this project was allowed to move ahead by Anna Throne-Holst and Brad Bender - in cahoots with the Republicans on the Town Board.

Where are they today? Anna is in Europe and Bender is in the slammer. Where will Mr. Glinka be next year? In the back of a Bridgehampton National Bank branch.

It supposed to provide a good community benefit, however this just doesnt seem the case in regard to the size and scope that these developers obtain or try to obtain. Lets be clear its all about making more profit thats was a PDD does,and in exchange the community receives a payoff. The canal is going to be ruined by the Rechlers, The Cty rod 39 shopping center fortunately is now a no go. These developers know exactly what they are buying before the buy it and know excatly how much profit they can ...moremake. But if they offer us a "bribe" they can make so much more under the guise of community benefit. So this zoning abuse hasnt produced and real benefit to the people who live here year roound.

The PDD law has been nothing but a scam that has allowed developers to get around existing zoning in exchange for a nebulous concept of "community benefit". No definition of the benefit by the way. Scrap this crap and build as of right or not at all.

So we may as well throw out all those Comprehensive Plans the town has spent so much effort to assemble while passing moratorium after moratorium while preparing them.

"§ 330-240Findings and purpose. [Amended 10-23-2001 by L.L. No. 43-2001]A. It is hereby found and determined by the Town Board of the Town of Southampton that there exists in the Town vast but diminishing natural resources and tracts of land deserving of preservation and maintenance for ...morethis and future generations. This need is balanced by a need to accommodate and provide for the future economic welfare and development of the Town.

B. The purpose of this planned development district (PDD) legislation is to facilitate increased flexibility to achieve more desirable development through the use of more creative and imaginative design of residential, mixed use, commercial and industrial areas than is presently achievable under conventional land use techniques and zoning regulations and to preserve, adapt and improve existing open space, land uses and communities, consistent with the recommendations of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of planned development shall be established on a floating zone basis with attendant controls and regulations intended to provide the means to accomplish the salutary purposes and goals set out herein..."

An impartial professor, Dr. Christopher Gobler - whose advice was sought by Jay Schneiderman and before that, Anna Throne-Holst - was quoted by Amanda Bernocco for the Press:

Dr. Chris Gobler, a marine science professor at Stony Brook-Southampton and arguably one of the region’s most respected water quality experts, shared for the first time this week that he thinks that a luxury golf course resort community proposed in East Quogue would add ...moremore nitrogen to the environment than if the developer was required to adhere to the site’s current zoning.Dr. Gobler did not say that he opposes the project being pitched by the Discovery Land Company of Arizona, an 118-residential unit complex that would also feature an 18-hole golf course that would require Southampton Town Board approval of special zoning called a planned development district, or PDD. But he made it clear that, as currently pitched, the development would contribute more nitrogen to already compromised groundwater in the hamlet.

The Master Plans, the PDD law, etc. all needs to be reviewed and updated on a basis...it is just plain lazy inept government planning departments that recommend to scrap some laws and implement recommendations from Master Plans. These people would not last a day in the real world.

The Hills at Southampton’s proposed change of zone, from 5-acre residential to a Mixed-Use Planned Development District (MUPDD), in East Quogue, on the largest remaining Pine Barrens tract—436 acres—should be vigorously opposed by the Southampton ...moreTown Board and the public. Write your Town Board. Tell them to vote “No.” See www. stopthehills.com.This radical downzoning would destroy decades of environmental victories, culminating in critical Southampton environmental laws, including the 5-acre residential zone, open space law and the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Environmentalists worked long and hard to pass these highly protective laws, which could be gutted.

Under existing zoning, The Hills would receive 82 residential units. The town can use the open space law to cluster homes together and save more than 65 percent of the parcel as natural open space, and use its Aquifer Protection Overlay District to restrict fertilized turf to a half acre on the entire site, which would reduce nitrogen and pesticide pollution. Instead, the Town Board is poised to approve between 82 and 118 units, plus an 85-acre private golf course, restaurant, clubhouse, pool house and sprawling parking lots.

The Hills is on the groundwater divide—the “headwaters” of the aquifer system. Clean, fresh water must flow “off the hill” if public and private wells and the bays “downstream” are to be healthy and clean. We have already exceeded the capacity of our bay ecosystem, as evidenced by recurring brown tides.For those who claim the MUPDD zone better protects the environment—“The Emperor has no clothes!” The Hills is a fraud foisted on an unsuspecting public.

Representatives of The Hills claim that the MUPDD would protect the public drinking water supply more than the existing zone. This is a fraud.Fact 1: A toxic golf course is proposed on top of two Suffolk County public drinking water wells, which supply at least 179.3 million gallons of water a year to residents.Fact 2: Well fields in the Hampton Bays Water District likely will be poisoned by the toxic plume of pollution generated by the golf course. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that groundwater flow is west from the site, east toward the wells.Fact 3: Existing zoning limits polluting turf to a half acre for the entire tract. The golf course proposes 164 times more.Fact 4: The golf course will generate two to three times the polluting nitrates than the existing zoning. The Cornell study concludes that golf courses generate 7.5 milligrams of nitrogen per liter, versus 2 to 3 mg/liter from 5-acre residential development.

Representatives of The Hills claim that poisons from the golf course will not get into groundwater or poison the public. This is a fraud.Fact 1: The New York attorney general commissioned a study, titled “Toxic Fairways: Risking Groundwater Contamination from Pesticides on Long Island Golf Courses.” It concluded that Long Island golf courses used 192 pesticides with 50 active ingredients, including carcinogens. Health impacts included cancer, impaired nervous systems, optic nerve degeneration, decreased red blood cell counts and hemoglobin concentrations, low birth weights, toxicity to fetuses, toxicity to livers and decreases in sperm.Fact 2: According to the American Cancer Society, one in two American men, and one in three American women, will get cancer.

Representatives of The Hills claim that the MUPDD will give the town more control over environmental impacts. This is a fraud.Fact 1: The town will have no control over pesticides if it allows a golf course because of the doctrine of preemption, which holds that where state or federal governments have a pervasive set of laws on a subject, like pesticide use, they preempt local control. Fact 2: The town has the power to limit fertilized/poisoned turf under its Aquifer Protection Overlay District. The preemption doctrine would not apply to turf controls. The town can further limit turf and, thus, reduce pollution by local law by amending the Aquifer Protection Overlay District or imposing covenants under the state Environmental Quality Review Act.

Representatives of The Hills claim that there would be no air pollution from pesticides. This is a fraud.Fact 1: The attorney general concludes that pesticides drift far from their application.Fact 2: The East Quogue Elementary School, East Quogue Main Street, the East Quogue Village Green, the East Quogue marine park and the Weesuck bird sanctuary are several blocks from The Hills. They will experience toxic aerial pesticide drift. The public will breathe poison.

Representatives of The Hills claim that the golf course will pollute our bays less than the existing zoning. This is a fraud. Fact 1: The Cornell study concludes that golf courses pollute two to three times more nitrogen than a housing development in the 5-acre zone.Fact 2: The Aquifer Protection Overly District limits turf to a half acre on the entire site.

Representatives of The Hills claim that the golf course development will generate $4.5 million in taxes to the town, and $3.5 million to the East Quogue School District per year or $10,000/acre. This is a fraud.Fact 1: Golf courses generate half the taxes of residential developments. Tax records reveal that Sebonac Neck Property LLC generated $241,975 a year. The Atlantic Golf Club Inc. generated $52,246. National Golf Links of America generated $185,988.78. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club Inc. generated $180,257.32 a year. (Average: $785/acre.) Fact 2: Taxes for golf course developments are so low that Tuckahoe residents complained to officials to modify the way they are assessed. See “Golf Clubs In Tuckahoe Take Up Large Percentage Of District, Pay Low Percentage Of Property Taxes,” www.27east.com.

The Hills’ claim that they met the PDD law’s requirement to provide public benefits. This is a fraud.Fact 1: PDD laws define public benefits to include the following: open space, housing for persons of low or moderate income, parks, elder care, [and] day care ... .” None of which is provided.Fact 2: Existing laws provide all alleged public benefits anyway. Tell the Town Board to vote “No” on the Hills at Southampton MUPDD. Fight hard to protect your family’s health. Vigorously protect our drinking water, air and bays. Join forces with state and federal authorities to purchase this critical parcel.

Carolyn Zenk, an attorney from Hampton Bays, is a former Southampton Town councilwoman, general counsel to Group for the East End and recipient of the “Champion of the Environment Award” from former Vice President Al Gore. She is also representing an unnamed group of East Quogue homeowners who want the Town Board to reject the proposed The Hills at Southampton MUPDD.

The same Carolyn Zenk who is the underling to Mr Ron Kass. The same Ron Kass who gets a golf membership at Hampton Hills at a nominal cost for what reason exactly? The same Ron Kass who cries wolf about maintenance of turf grass poisoning the aquifer while keeping his own lawn in astonishingly pristine condition?

Ms. Zenk is hardly a bastion of integrity or professionalism. She has used the words "fraud", "dupe" and other slanders when not knowing the meaning of those words and based on ...moreher ignorant and amateurish analyses. This was the women who haughtily referred to the non-existent "Anderson's Rules of Order" at a hearing.

It seems very short-sighted that the PDD law would simply be repealed and not replaced or updated. Remember, there was a time where there was thought to be a real need for a zoning mechanism that resulted in the PDD law, not just over one town administration. I don't remember at the time people coming out to complain bitterly about this concept.

So, in my opinion, one town administration just killing it outright may have unanticipated negative consequences down the line. While I would ...moreagree that the law, as is, could be tweaked to guarantee or more agreeably specify what community benefits would be derived, this move to kill the law is starting to illustrate a problem in Town Hall. We already know that a Town Board is not obligated to even consider a PDD if it doesn't want to. So, killing the law is simply tying the hands of future town boards, it is doing nothing for the current board, which is clearly against them, and has put a moratorium in place so they can't even be tempted.

Where is the leadership of our elected representatives, not just the spot-polling of the moment that makes for puffy press releases. Where is the long-term strategy, realistic visions, that not only preserve what is good about the town, but looks forward to making the town better in the future.

I'm seeing a pattern with these things. Leadership is not just being led by what the majority thinks at the moment, it is also having the courage to look beyond a pay a duty to service on a vision for the town for future generations. Where is that in the complete repeal of this law?

It seems to be that "scrapping" the Law is the lazy way out...we had a year...did nothing...so we need to show something for our work..ok .let's..SCRAP it...Same thing with the implementation of some of the decade old master plans.."what? we don't need a new horse and buggy road? ..but that is what the Master Plan says...that is what the community wants". It must be nice having a job that has no accountability.

As I have previously stated, the PDD scam only provided a benefit to the developers, allowing them to avoid zoning requirements in return for a never defined concept of community benefit. Building as of right seems like the sensible thing to do.

On the one hand, our supervisor and Town Board are poised to eliminate the planned development district legislation due to the fact that it has become grossly distorted over the years and turned into nothing more than a vehicle for overdevelopment and speculation. While on the other hand, these same officials have been deliberating endlessly on whether or not to grant a PDD zone change to a billion-dollar out-of-state development ...morecorporation to build a golf course, with all its negative environmental impacts, over a dedicated Aquifer Protection Area in the Pine Barrens in East Quogue.

Something must be totally scrambled in our Town Hall. If they feel that the PDD legislation needs to be eliminated or drastically changed then how can our Town Board, in good faith, even consider “The Hills at Southampton” PDD application, which is the most impactful and egregious by far of any of these PDDs?

The central point of all PDD zone changes is the strength of the public benefits derived from the project. For example, a school or hospital needs to expand, and the only land available is zoned residential—a PDD would allow them to expand. The public benefit of a better school or hospital is obvious.

However, with The Hills PDD application for the Pine Barrens in East Quogue, there are no public benefits intrinsic to the project. But there are severe long-term environmental and health risks to building a golf course, with all its chemical pollutants, directly over our irreplaceable underground reservoir.

The applicant, Discovery Land Company of Arizona, has seemingly interpreted intrinsic benefits to mean promising oceans of money to various groups and projects in the East Quogue area. This is more in line with purchasing a zone change—which is one of the main reasons why the PDD legislation is on the road to be eliminated.

So here we are. Our supervisor and Town Board are procrastinating and dithering while we are being constantly bombarded by Discovery Land Company’s hired consultants and other paid minions issuing reports and letters to the editor advocating for this potential financial bonanza. Just remember: Consultants and lawyers are like portrait painters. They paint a picture to please their client … the one that pays them.

It is way past time for the supervisor and Town Board to vote and put an end to this PDD application. All it takes is courage.

You might want to look into an actual scientific argument for your claims about a golf course. If you do it right, you'll see that your statement is absolutely without merit. Here's a tip. FOIL the monitoring results on Golf at the Bridge and Sebonack. You'll see that the results are nothing like what you fear. Moreover, before you tout your predictable statements about the consultants being on a payroll, please note that the company undertaking it is Legette, Brashears & Graham. The very same company ...morethat the Group For the East End entrusted with an opinion. An opinion but the way, that supports the science on The Hills.

And let's put the "irreplaceable underground aquifer" statement in the spotlight. Can you verify the limits of this aquifer? Once you have done that, you may be asking yourself how on earth any changes in the whole of Long Island can happen. Are you ready to battle everything blindly or are you ready to embrace science and reality?

Well said Mr. Havemeyer. DLC is procrastinating because they know they don't have the votes. They are a highly experienced developer with mega bucks and highly paid consultants, yet they needed 4 attempts at a DEIS before they got it accepted? A deadline of May 15 was 45 days after the comment period ended on 4/1 and the FEIS should be ready. Now they "hope" it will be ready at the end of the month. And if it is "incomplete" it will be bounced back to them for yet another try to get it right. ...more A FEIS is a Final Environmental Impact Statement. What is it about the words "deadline" and "final" they don't understand? If this goes forward into election season we must activate and motivate anti Hills candidates for the board to prevent DLC from doing the same with pro Hills candidates. IMO this is their plan so they can get the votes for the PDD with a new board after the election. Game on.

Nobody is procrastinating. An FEIS can only be prepared when the specific questions have all been submitted to the applicant by the Town to answer. You need to familiarize yourself with the process. The process dictates that you get it right and complete and then it gets voted on. The 45 day limit is to protect the applicant and not the Town so that the Town doesn't endlessly procrastinate.

You seem to be speculating wildly that this is some elaborate strategy to stall. You have no evidence ...morewhatsoever of that because there isn't any. What is evident is that you are unfamiliar with the SEQRA or due process.

So your position is to boot out elected officials, who through the SEQRA and town's planning process, to which they are sworn to uphold pursuant to State and local law, and replace them with a handful of puppets selected to carry out your bidding.

Did I click "Like" here? Mistake, mistake. Meant to reply, as follows:

Lion speaks of "a handful of puppets selected to carry out your bidding," but I'd call them democratically elected representatives responsible to the will of the people. That's how a democracy works, as ably described by Taz three posts above, speaking of the pro-Hills and anti-Hills candidates being activated and motivated by their respective supporters.

That's how we do it in America, and Lion is even ...morefree to call the resulting officials "puppets" if he wants, but everyone will just laugh because we know he's indulging in empty hyperbole. Check out Strunk and White, man.

Yeah, sure, as if the mopes involved in small town politics (and national as well) actually believed they are "responsible to the will of the people" rather than their cronies who keep that machine grinding up tax dollars and spitting out more lifetime funding for the hacks and their hangers on.

Everyone would be laughing at that machine if only it actually served the people without extracting cash at every turn rather than fueling its perpetual motion.

The elected officials who are in office don't finish their terms until midnight December 31,2017. The TAZ comments display a complete lack of understanding of their sworn duties. Please TB, refrain from your condescending responses such as how "we" do it in America, as if "I" am to be discounted by "you". Quite a contrast to the model democracy "you" support, (providing the model suits your personal perspective).

Why does science matter... ? Mmm, There's a pile of sand somewhere with a small hole in it... about the diameter of your hat size. Really? Your posts of past suggested you had a bit more on the ball than this last one. I'm disappointed.

So Lion, if what you say is true, how come two of your replies purport to address me by name? Getting careless, man. Also, how about telling us whether you too are being compensated by Discovery Land or any related person or entity?

If you think this morning's commute through Hampton Bays/Shinnecock Hills was bad, just wait until the CPI opens and has to shut down traffic on part of Montauk Highway when there are "events." Second home values will plummet.

The days of the glorious CPI are long gone. It may be a nice idea, but it does not belong at the current location. Rechlers , , , move on.

The Rechlers wanted to build at the site and were stopped. Don't blame the PPD Law, don't blame the Rechlers. Blame those that wanted to save CPI and sold their souls and the souls of the rest of Hampton Bays to do so.